Keywords
Splenic artery aneurysm, pregnancy, endovascular coiling
Splenic artery aneurysm, pregnancy, endovascular coiling
SAA, Splenic artery aneurysm; G6P3M1T1, Gravida 6 Para 3, 1 miscarriage, 1 termination; BIBA, Brought in by ambulance; LUQ, Left upper quadrant; PV, Per vaginal; SBP, Systolic blood pressure; FAST, Focussed assessment with sonography for trauma; ROTEM, Rotational thomboelastometry; QID, quarter in die/four times each day
Splenic artery aneurysm (SAA) is a rare diagnosis. Its high mortality and typically delayed diagnosis make it a surgical diagnosis not to be missed. While rare during pregnancy, rupture of a splenic artery aneurysm carries a maternal morbidity of 75% and neonatal mortality approaching 95%1. Within Australia recently there have been two prominent coroners’ reports originating from South Australia2 and Victoria3. While both coronial inquests recognised the disease’s rarity, it was commented that the high morbidity and mortality associated with the condition mandate a high clinical suspicion in the presentation of acute abdomen during pregnancy2,3.
While the most common visceral aneurysm, splenic artery aneurysm is infrequently encountered. Within women of childbearing age it occurs in less than 0.1% of the population4, although true prevalence may be unknown, with many being asymptomatic5. It has a 4:1 female to male prevalence, and is typically seen at the 6th decade of life4–6. The risk factors include multiparity, angiodysplasia, atherosclerosis, polyarteritis nodosa, cirrhosis, portal hypertension and connective tissue disorders especially α1 anti-trypsin deficiency4–6. A five-year retrospective study conducted by vascular surgeons in Dallas, Texas, at one of the largest obstetric hospitals within the USA found no diagnoses of SAA for 67,000 births, with only 35 diagnosed cases during that time, none whom were pregnant4. 89% of female patients diagnosed had previously been pregnant however, with multiparity an increased risk factor4.
The state of pregnancy is a physiological and hormonal risk factor for developing SAA. Tremble and Hill’s classic proposal7 for the two causes of splenic aneurysm development, being initial weakness of the arterial wall compounded by increased systemic blood pressure, may be applied. During pregnancy, the hormones oestrogen, progresterone and relaxin cause weakness within the vessel wall8,9. Histologically this is described as subendothelial thickening, internal lamina fragmentation, medial myelodysplasia8,9 and increased acid glycosaminoglycans within the subintimal and medial layers10. While the wall is weakened it is vulnerable to the increased pressures associated with the increased cardiac output, circulating volume and portal hypertension associated with the gravid state8. Aortic aneurysm, cerebral aneurysm and ovarian aneurysm have also been noted within the literature to be associated with pregnancy and multiparity5.
Splenic artery aneurysm may present incidentally during the screening ultrasounds of modern antenatal care, or with rupture5,8,9. The latter is classically described as a presentation of left upper quadrant pain, potentially with Kehr’s sign11 (pain radiating to left shoulder tip) with initial instability, a quiescent phase of bleeding into the lesser sac before further collapse. This double rupture phenomenon is only described in 20–30% of cases5 but is important clinically as it may provide a false reassurance to treating staff. The typical size of an aneurysm at rupture is typically above 2.5cm, although ruptures of aneurysms 0.5cm in size have been described. This makes the discovery of the incidental splenic artery aneurysm during antenatal scans problematic, particularly for those under 2cm in size. The diagnosis even at rupture can be a challenge, differentials which can present similarly including pulmonary embolus, amniotic embolism and placental abruption; due to the general instability of the presenting patient imaging may be a guide to treatment but should not interrupt prompt resuscitation. Many descriptions within the literature describe confirmation of the diagnosis at laparotomy and emergency caesarean section.
See Table 1 for a timeline of symptoms, diagnosis and intervention.
The patient who presented was a 37-year-old female with significant multigravid obstetric history. G6P3M1T1, she had an inert Mirena in situ at the time of her pregnancy and had had two prior presentations to emergency for threatened miscarriage during this pregnancy. She had a previous surgical history of laparoscopic cholecystectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass for obesity, for which she had lost 50kg, current weight being 110kg.
She complained of two days of left upper quadrant (LUQ) pain, no fevers but sweats and vaginal spotting. There were no other reported symptoms of note.
On presentation to emergency with Queensland Ambulance Service she was diaphoretic, in obvious pain localising to the left upper quadrant. She was afebrile, with an initial systolic blood pressure of 80mmHg, which improved to 100-120mmHg with crystalloid resuscitation. Her abdomen was difficult to examine given her habitus, but she had localising peritonism to her LUQ.
Simultaneous wide bore IV access was obtained while taking venous gas and formal bloods. A cross match was sent. A bedside FAST scan was positive. Obstetric and General surgical review was sought. After two litres of crystalloid resuscitation her blood pressure had stabilised. The initial haemoglobin had come back at 110g/L. A formal ultrasound was ordered within the resus bay. This revealed fluid within Morrison’s pouch and a likely splenic artery aneurysm.
Because the patient remained stable, the decision was made to perform a CT angiogram limited to the upper abdomen to limit radiation. The risks and benefits of this were discussed with the patient prior to ordering. This confirmed the diagnosis with a 30x18mm aneurysm arising from the distal splenic artery within the hilum with a small triangular beak anteriorly suspected to be the area of rupture.
Given ongoing haemodynamic stability, there was discussion between the Hepatobiliary consultant, Obstetricians and Intervention Radiology consultant of the risks and benefits of radiographic coiling compared to laparoscopic intervention. The outcome was that an attempt at coiling was made that night with as little radiation and contrast as could be allowed. Where possible single imaging shots were taken rather than continuous runs, with small aliquots of contrast administered in each run. The procedure was successful and the patient was returned to the ward.
After observation for two days, a repeat ultrasound was performed. This showed no residual aneurysm. The patient complained of dysuria at day two and was put on oral cephalexin 250mg QID. She was discharged on day three on oral antibiotics with a plan to attend her obstetric clinic and a surgical clinic at 14 days.
While a rare presentation, rupture of a splenic artery aneurysm represents a life-threatening event for the patient and within an obstetric setting, her pregnancy. Prompt diagnosis and resuscitation in this case allowed for further evaluation with further imaging. The fact that the patient remained haemodynamically stable also allowed for the option for interventional radiological coiling. Considerations which were considered by the treating team were the risk to the foetus from radiation and contrast, combined with the potential delay of surgery in the event of a failed embolisation. The option of laparoscopic evaluation and potential progression to splenectomy was considered. This was to be the next approach in the event of a failed embolisation.
Embolisation of the spleen, while potentially less physiologically stressful than surgical intervention8 is not without risk of complication1. Potential risks included migration of the coil, distal infarction, abscess formation and further aneurysm rupture1,5. The decision to embolise also needs to consider the status of the patient, anatomical location of the lesion and availability of interventional radiology. In the event of instability, prompt surgical intervention, typically through caesarean laparotomy or laparoscopy with ligation of the splenic artery and splenectomy is usually the recommended action.
The mainstay treatment of SAA outside pregnancy is radiological coiling5,8. Introduction of coiling has drastically improved the morbidity and mortality of treatment of visceral aneurysms. Elective treatment should anticipate pregnancy in women of reproductive age with the criteria for intervention typically as a diameter >1cm5. Consideration of radiological coiling anticipates the anatomical location of the aneurysm with the goal of spleen preservation, which may not be possible with aneurysms affecting the splenic hilum. The discovery of a splenic artery aneurysm incidentally during pregnancy is worth considering. Typically, embolisation is recommend above 2cm10, with intervention ideally occurring in the 2nd trimester, both to minimise harm to the foetus and reduce the risk of rupture, the majority of ruptures being described in the 3rd trimester.
All data underlying the results are available as part of the article and no additional source data are required.
Written informed consent for publication of their clinical details was obtained from the patient.
Views | Downloads | |
---|---|---|
F1000Research | - | - |
PubMed Central
Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.
|
- | - |
Is the background of the case’s history and progression described in sufficient detail?
Partly
Are enough details provided of any physical examination and diagnostic tests, treatment given and outcomes?
Yes
Is sufficient discussion included of the importance of the findings and their relevance to future understanding of disease processes, diagnosis or treatment?
No
Is the case presented with sufficient detail to be useful for other practitioners?
Partly
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Reviewer Expertise: Vascular surgeon.
Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:
Invited Reviewers | |
---|---|
1 | |
Version 1 14 Mar 19 |
read |
Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list:
Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles
Already registered? Sign in
The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.
You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.
To sign in, please click here.
If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here.
You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.
To sign in, please click here.
If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here.
If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password.
If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance.
Comments on this article Comments (0)